People v. Defeo, 92 N.Y.2d 947 (1998)

To sustain a conviction for criminal mischief in the fourth degree under New York Penal Law § 145.00, the prosecution must prove that the defendant intentionally damaged tangible property.

Summary

Defendant was convicted of criminal mischief after she pulled a surveyor’s stake from the ground during a property dispute with her neighbor. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the criminal mischief conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the defendant’s actions caused any damage to tangible property, which is a necessary element of the crime under Penal Law § 145.00. While the extent of damage required is slight, some amount of damage must be proven.

Facts

During a dispute with her neighbor regarding the boundary line between their properties, the defendant removed a marker stake that a surveyor (hired by the neighbor) had placed on the property line. The defendant threw the stake several feet. The defendant was subsequently charged with criminal mischief in the fourth degree, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted by a Town Court jury of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and disorderly conduct. The County Court affirmed the Town Court’s judgment. A Judge of the Court of Appeals granted the defendant leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a conviction for criminal mischief in the fourth degree under New York Penal Law § 145.00 requires proof of damage to tangible property.

Holding

Yes, because Penal Law § 145.00 requires proof that the defendant intentionally damaged the property of another person without the right to do so or reasonable grounds to believe that she had such a right.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that Penal Law § 145.00(1) requires proof of intentional damage to the property of another. While the extent of damage necessary to sustain a conviction for fourth-degree criminal mischief is slight, some amount of damage is required. The Court emphasized the absence of any evidence presented by the prosecution demonstrating damage to the property demarcated by the stake or to the stake itself. The Court stated, “In order for a defendant to be found guilty of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, the People must prove that defendant intentionally damaged the property of another person without the right to do so or reasonable grounds to believe that she had such a right (Penal Law § 145.00 [1]). While the extent of damage necessary to sustain a conviction for fourth degree criminal mischief is slight, some amount of damage is required…However, on this record, proof of damage is completely lacking.” The Court found the jury charge for disorderly conduct was proper. The Court modified the order by dismissing the criminal mischief charge and remitting to the Town Court for resentencing.